Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010222682024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/3499/2024 THE RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 19, RELIANCE CENTRE, WALCHAND HIRACHAND MARG, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI 400001 AND CORPORATE OFFICE AT 570, RECTIFIER HOUSE, NAGAUM CROSS, NEXT TO ROYAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, WADALA (W), MUMBAI 400031 AND ONE OF THE BRANCH OFFICE AT PRAG PLAZA, 5TH FLOOR G.S. ROAD, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI, PIN-781005. VERSUS UDIT KUMAR BORAH AND 2 ORS S/O. SRI PRASANNA KUMAR, BORAH. 2:BANDITA BORDOLOI W/O. UDIT KUMAR BORAH BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF VILL.- PAGHALI PANBARI P/S. MIKIBHETA DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782001. (OPPOSITE PARTY NO.1 BEING REP. BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 2 HIS WIFE) 3:BABU HUSSAIN R/O. MORI MUSALMANGAON P/O. AND P/S. MORIGAON DIST. MORIGAON ASSAM PIN-782105 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A J SAIKIA, MR. S. PEGU Advocate for the Respondent : MR. M TALUKDAR (R-1,2), Page No.# 2/3 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 17.03.2025 Heard Mr. A.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. 2. Office note date 06.03.2025, indicates that service in respect of opposite party No. 3 has already been completed, but the opposite party No. 3 remains unrepresented today. 3. This interlocutory application, under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, is preferred by the applicant for condonation of delay of 33 days in preferring the connected appeal against the judgment and award dated 20.06.2024, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Morigaon, in MAC Case No. 23/2019. 4. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the appeal against the judgment and award dated 20.06.2024, could not be preferred within the stipulated period of time as certified copy of the said judgment and award could not be obtained in time and that the same has duly been explained in paragraph No. 4 of this application and as such, it is contended to condone the delay of 33 days. 5. Mr. Talukdar, learned counsel for the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 submits that he has no objection in the event of condoning the aforesaid delay. 6. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the application and the documents placed on Page No.# 3/3 record, and also perused the statements and averments made in paragraph No. 4 of this application. 7. It appears that the certified copy of the judgment and award dated 20.06.2024, could not be obtained in time and that the delay is not intentional, rather it is circumstantial and the same has duly been explained in paragraph No. 4 of this application and therefore, this Court is inclined to condone the delay of 33 days in preferring the connected appeal. 8. In terms of above, this I.A. stands disposed of. 9. Registry shall register the connected appeal and list the same before this Court as soon as practicable. The name of Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall be reflected in the cause list. JUDGE Comparing Assistant